b 




713 




.Sir 








* " • A -< H '' K * ' 

• '■■■■ y- ■ ■ i '■'■'•»■ . 

■ :■' ,; .v ■■'?;■■> 




■'. V • >; V- ' > ..■'■ ■ V ■ ■ ' ' 
■•!.-■;■'.« y ' H - ■ "■'■ ' 


}RIX*^ > 'M£ 'riiSn/uijii ^ier •' '•'•■.'• 1 


-V ■'■-'■• ■ 
1BSI Kb ■■■■■■ 

V ^ .V ' V' v ,'' : "" ' 










i^i^^fejf* ^^ >mpIm 




^^^fPl^f^S^ 


• EH *'"■': ■* - '■ • 




Mi'" . V ■ 





*> 



■-V 



*J- 




s 








*■*, 




















































< ^ 













\ 






















































OQ' 



,0o, 




































































































. / 



























•s^ 
























,0o. 


















































































1* 



s^ 



THE CONQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES BY 

SPAIN. 

A Lecture before the Phi Beta Kappa Society op 
Yale University, January 16, 1899. 

During the last year the public has been familiarized with 
descriptions of Spain and of Spanish methods of doing things 
until the name of Spain has become a symbol for a certain 
well-defined set of notions and policies. On the other hand, 
the name of the United States has always been, for all of us, 
a symbol for a state of things, a set of ideas and traditions, a 
group of views about social and political affairs. Spain was 
the first, for a long time the greatest, of the modern imperial- 
istic states. The United States, by its historical origin, its 
traditions and its principles, is the chief representative of the 
revolt and reaction against that kind of a state. I intend to 
show that, by the line of action now proposed to us, which 
we call expansion and imperialism, we are throwing away 
some of the most important elements of the American symbol, 
and are adopting some of the most important elements of the 
Spanish symbol. We have beaten Spain in a military con- 
flict, but we are submitting to be conquered by her on the \ 
field of ideas and policies. Expansionism and imperialism \1 
are nothing but the old philosophies of national prosperity 
which have brought Spain to where she now is. ^ Those | 
philosophies appeal to national vanity and national cupidity. 
They are seductive, especially upon the first view and the 
most superficial judgment, and therefore it cannot be denied 
that they are very strong for popular effect. They are delu- 
sions, and they will lead us to ruin unless we are hard-headed 
enough to resist them. In any case, the year 1898 is a great 
landmark in the history of the United States. The conse- 
quences will not be all good or all bad, for such is not the 
nature of societal influences. They are always mixed of good 






and ill, and so it will be in this case. Fifty years from now, 
the historian, looking back to 1898, will no doubt see, in the 
course which things will have taken, consequences of the 
proceedings of that } r ear, and of this present one, which will 
not all be bad, but you will observe that that is not a justifi- 
cation for a happy-go-lucky policy ; that does not affect our 
duty to-day in all that we do to seek wisdom and prudence, 
and to determine our actions by the best judgment which we 
can form. 

War, expansion, and imperialism are questions of states- 
manship and of nothing else. I disregard all other aspects 
of them, and all extraneous elements which have been inter- 
mingled with them. I received the other day a circular of a 
new educational enterprise in which it was urged that, on 
account of our new possessions, we ought now to devote 
especial study to history, political economy, and what is 
called political science. I asked myself, why ? What more 
reason is there for pursuing these studies now on behalf of 
our dependencies than there was before to pursue them on 
behalf of ourselves ? In our proceedings of 1898, we made no 
use of whatever knowledge we had of any of these lines 
of study. The original and prime cause of the war was that 
it was a move of partisan tactics in the strife of parties at 
Washington. As soon as it seemed resolved upon, a number 
of interests began to see their advantage in it, and hastened 
to further it. It was necessary to make appeals to the public 
which would bring quite other motives to the support of the 
enterprise, and win the consent of classes who would never 
consent to either financial or political jobbery. Such appeals 
were found in sensational assertions which we had no means 
to verify, in phrases of alleged patriotism, in statements about 
Cuba and the Cubans which we now know to have been 
entirely untrue. 

Where was the statesmanship of all this ? If it is not an 
established rule of statecraft that a statesman should never 
impose any sacrifices on his people for anything but their own 
interests, then it is useless to study political philosophy any 
more, for this is the alphabet of it. It is contrary to honest 
statesmanship to imperil the political welfare of the state for 
party interests. It was unstatesmanlike to publish a solemn 

'^- , Owe'" q t 



declaration that we would not seize any territory, and espe- 
cially to characterize such action in advance as ' ' criminal 
aggression," for it was morally certain that we should come 
out of any war with Spain with conquered territory on our 
hands, and the people who wanted the war, or who consented 
to it, hoped that we would do so. 

We talk about ' ' liberty ' ' all the time in a glib and easy 
way, as if liberty was a thing that men could have if they 
want it, and to any extent to which they want it. It is cer- 
tain that a very large part of human liberty consists simply 
in the choice either to do a thing or to let it alone. If we 
decide to do it, a whole series of consequences is entailed 
upon us in regard to which it is exceedingly difficult, or 
impossible, for us to exercise any liberty at all. The proof 
of this from the case before us is so clear and easy that I need 
spend no words upon it. Here, then, you have the reason 
why it is a rule of sound statesmanship not to embark on an 
adventurous policy. A statesman could not be expected to 
know in advance that we should come out of the war with 
the Philippines on our hands, but it belongs to his education 
to warn him that a policy of adventure and of gratuitous 
enterprise would be sure to entail embarrassments of some 
kind. What comes to us in the evolution of our own life 
and interests, that we must meet ; what we go to seek which 
lies beyond that domain, is a waste of our energy and a com- 
promise of our liberty and welfare. If this is not sound 
doctrine, then the historical and social sciences have nothing 
to teach us which is worth any trouble. 

There is another observation, however, about the war 
which is of far greater importance ; that is, that it was a 
gross violation of self-government. We boast that we are 
a self-governing people, and in this respect, particularly, we 
compare ourselves with pride with older nations. What is 
the difference, after all? The Russians, whom we always 
think of as standing at the opposite pole of political institu- 
tions, have self-government, if you mean by it acquiescence 
in what a little group of people at the head of the government 
agree to do. The war with Spain was precipitated upon us 
headlong, without reflection or deliberation, and without any 
due formulation of public opinion. Whenever a voice was 



raised in behalf of deliberation and the recognized maxims 
of statesmanship, it was howled down in a storm of vitupera- 
tion and cant. Everything was done to make us throw away 
sobriety of thought and calmness of judgment, and to inflate 
all expressions with sensational epithets and turgid phrases. 
It cannot be denied that everything in regard to the war has 
been treated in an exalted strain of sentiment and rhetoric, 
very unfavorable to the truth. At present the whole periodi- 
cal press of the country seems to be occupied in tickling the 
national vanity to the utmost by representations about the war 
which are extravagant and fantastic. There will be a penalty 
to be paid for all this. Nervous and sensational newspapers 
are just as corrupting, especially to young people, as nervous 
and sensational novels. The habit of expecting that all men- 
tal pabulum shall be highly spiced, and the corresponding 
loathing for whatever is soberly truthful, undermines charac- 
ter as much as any other vice. Patriotism is being prostituted 
into a nervous intoxication which is fatal to an apprehension 
of truth. It builds around us a fool's paradise, and it will 
lead us into errors about our position and relations just like 
those which we have been ridiculing in the case of Spain. 

There are some now who think that it is the perfection of 
statesmanship to say that expansion is a fact, and that it is 
useless to discuss it. We are told that we must not cross 
any bridges until we come to them ; that is, that we must 
discuss nothing in advance, and that we must not discuss 
anything which is past because it is irretrievable. No doubt 
this would be a very acceptable doctrine to the powers that 
be, for it would mean that they were relieved from responsi- 
bility, but it would be a marvellous doctrine to be accepted 
by a self-governing people. Senator Foraker has told us 
that we are not to keep the Philippines longer than is neces- 
sary to teach the people self-government. How one man 
can tell what we are to do before the constitutional authorities 
have decided it, I do not know. Perhaps it is a detail in 
our new method of self-government. If his assurances are 
to be trusted, we are paying $20,000,000 for the privilege of 
tutoring the Tagals up to liberty and self-government. I do 
not believe that, if the United States undertakes to govern 
the islands, it will ever give them up except to superior 



force, but the weakening of imperialism shown by this gentle- 
man's assurances, after a few days of mild debate in the 
Senate, shows that agitation of the subject is not yet in vain. 
Then again, if we have done anything, especially if we have 
acted precipitately, it is a well-recognized course of prudent 
behavior to find out where we are, what we have done, and 
what the new situation is into which we have come. Then, 
too, we must remember that when the statesman lays a thing 
down the historian takes it up, and he will group it with 
historical parallels and contrasts. There is a set of men who 
have always been referred to, in our Northern States, for the 
last thirty years, with especial disapproval. They are those 
Southerners who, in 1861, did not believe in secession, but, 
as they said, " Went with their States." They have been 
condemned for moral cowardice. Yet within a year it has 
become almost a doctrine with us that patriotism requires 
that we should hold our tongues whenever our rulers choose 
to engage in war, although our interests, our institutions, our 
most sacred traditions, and our best established maxims may 
be trampled underfoot. There is no doubt that moral courage 
is the virtue which is more needed than any other in the 
modern democratic state, and that truckling to popularity is 
the worst political vice. The press, the platform, and the 
pulpit have all fallen under this vice, and there is evidence 
that the university also, which ought to be the last citadel of 
truth, is succumbing to it likewise. I have no doubt that the 
conservative classes of this country will yet look back with 
great regret to their acquiescence in the events of 1898 and 
the doctrines and precedents which have been silentl)' estab- 
lished. L,et us be well assured that self-government is not 
a matter of flags and Fourth of July orations, nor yet of 
strife to get offices. Eternal vigilance is the price of that as 
of every other political good. The perpetuity of self-govern- 
ment depends on the sound political sense of the people, and 
sound political sense is a matter of habit and practice. We 
can give it up and we can take instead pomp and glory. 
That is what Spain did. She had as much self-government 
as any country in Europe at the beginning of the sixteenth 
century. The union of the smaller states into one big one 
gave an impulse to her national feeling and national develop- 



ment. The discovery of America put into her hands the 
control of immense territories. National pride and ambition 
were stimulated. Then came the struggle with France for 
world-dominion, which resulted in absolute monarchy and 
bankruptcy for Spain. She lost self-government, and saw 
her resources spent on interests which were foreign to her, 
but she could talk about an empire on which the sun never 
set, and boast of her colonies, her gold mines, her fleets and 
armies and debts. She had glory and pride, mixed, of 
course, with defeat and disaster, such as must be experienced 
by any nation on that course of policy, and she grew weaker 
in her industry and commerce, and poorer in the status of 
the population all the time. She has never been able to 
recover real self-government yet. If we Americans believe 
in self-government, why do we let it slip away from us? 
Why do we barter it away for military glory as Spain did ? 

There is not a civilized nation which does not talk about 
its civilizing mission just as grandly as we do. The English, 
who really have more to boast of in this respect than anybody 
else, talk least about it, but the Phariseeism with which they 
correct and instruct other people has made them hated all 
over the globe. The French believe themselves the guardians 
of the highest and purest culture, and that the eyes of all 
mankind are fixed on Paris, from whence they expect oracles 
of thought and taste. The Germans regard themselves as 
charged with a mission, especially to us Americans, to save 
us from egoism and materialism. The Russians, in their 
books and newspapers, talk about the civilizing mission of 
Russia, in language that might be translated from some of 
the finest paragraphs in our imperialistic newspapers. The 
first principle of Mohammedanism is that we Christians are 
dogs and infidels, fit only to be enslaved or butchered by 
Moslems. It is a corollary that, wherever Mohammedanism 
extends, it carries, in the belief of its votaries, the highest 
blessings, and that the whole human race would be enor- 
mously elevated if Mohammedanism should supplant Chris- 
tianity everywhere. To come last to Spain, the Spaniards 
have, for centuries, considered themselves the most zealous 
and self-sacrificing Christians, especially charged by the 
Almighty, on this account, to spread true religion and 



civilization over the globe. They think themselves free 
and noble, leaders in refinement and the sentiments of per- 
sonal honor, and they despise us as sordid money-grabbers 
and heretics. I could bring you passages from peninsular 
authors of the first rank about the grand role of Spain and 
Portugal in spreading freedom and truth. Serpa Pinto, the 
distinguished Portuguese explorer of Africa, speaks of Portu- 
gal as the freest country in the world, and he says that it has 
extended to all its African possessions the blessing of the 
institutions which it enjoys at home. Now each nation 
laughs at all the others when it observes these manifestations 
of national vanity. You may rely upon it that they. are all 
ridiculous by virtue of these pretensions, including ourselves. 
The point is that each of them repudiates the standards of 
the others, and the outlying nations, which are to be civil- 
ized, hate all the standards of civilized men. We assume 
that what we like and practise, and what we think better, 
must come as a welcome blessing to Spanish- Americans and 
Filipinos. This is grossly and obviously untrue. They 
hate our ways. They are hostile to our ideas. Our religion, 
language, institutions, and manners offend them. They like 
their own ways, and if we appear amongst them as rulers, 
there will be social discord on all the great departments of 
social interest. The most important thing which we shall 
inherit from the Spaniards will be the task of suppressing 
rebellions. If the United States takes out of the hands of 
Spain her mission, on the ground that Spain is not executing 
it well, and if this nation, in its turn, attempts to be school- 
mistress to others, it will shrivel up into the same vanity and 
self-conceit of which Spain now presents an example. To 
read our current literature one would think that we were 
already well on the way to it. Now, the great reason why 
all these enterprises, which begin by saying to somebody else : 
We know what is good for you, better than you know your- 
self, and we are going to make you do it — are false and 
wrong, is that they violate liberty ; or, to turn the same 
statement into other words : the reason why liberty, of which 
we Americans talk so much, is a good thing, is, that it means 
leaving people to live out their own lives in their own way, 
while we do the same. If we believe in- liberty, as an 



IO 

American principle, why do we not stand by it ? Why are 
we going to throw it away to enter upon a Spanish policy of 
dominion and regulation ? 

/. The Question of Policy in the Treatment of Dependencies. 

The United States cannot be a colonizing nation for a long 
time yet. We have only twenty-three persons to the square 
mile in the United States without Alaska. The country can 
multiply its population by thirteen, that is, the population 
could rise above a billion, before the whole country would be 
as densely populated as Rhode Island is now. There is, 
therefore, no pressure of population, which is the first condi- 
tion of rational expansion, and no other reason for it, unless 
we could buy another territory like the Mississippi Valle} r 
with no civilized population in it. If we could do that, it 
would postpone the day of over-population still further, and 
make easier conditions for our people in the next generations. 
In the second place, the islands which we have taken from 
Spain never can be the residence of American families, re- 
moving and settling to make their homes there. The climatic 
conditions forbid it. Although Spaniards have established 
themselves in Spanish America, even in the tropics, the evils 
of Spanish rule have largely arisen from the fact that Span- 
iards have gone to the colonies as adventurers, eager to make 
fortunes as quickly as possible, that they might return to 
Spain to enjoy them. That the relation of our people to 
these possessions will have that character is already apparent. 
It is, therefore, inaccurate to speak of a colonial system in 
describing our relation to these dependencies, but as we have 
no other term, let us use this one and inquire what kind of a 
colonial system we are to establish. 

Spain stands, in modern history, as the first state to de- 
velop and apply a colonial system to her outlying possessions. 
Her policy was to exclude absolutely all non-Spaniards from 
her subject territories, and to exploit them for the benefit of 
Spain, without much regard for the aborigines or the colonists. 
The cold and unnecessary cruelty of the Spaniards to the 
aborigines is appalling, even when compared with the treat- 
ment of the aborigines by other Europeans. A modern ecou- 



II 

omist stands aghast at the economic measures adopted by 
Spain, as well in regard to her domestic policy as to her 
colonies. It seems as if those measures could only have been 
inspired by some demon of folly, they were so destructive to 
her prosperity. She possesses a large literature from the last 
three centuries, in which her publicists discuss with amaze- 
ment the question whether it was a blessing or a curse to get 
the Indies, and why, with all the supposed conditions of pros- 
perity in her hands, she was declining all the time. We now 
hear it argued that she is well rid of her colonies, and that, 
if she will devote her energies to her internal development, 
and rid her politics of the corruption of colonial officials and 
interests, she may be regenerated. That is a rational opinion. 
It is the best diagnosis of her condition, and the best pre- 
scription of a remedy which the occasion has called forth. 
But what, then, will happen to the state which has taken 
over her colonies? I can see no answer except that that 
nation, with them, has taken over the disease, and that it 
now is to be corrupted by exploiting dependent communities 
just as she has been. That it stands exposed to this danger 
is undeniable. 

As to the treatment of the aborigines in the outlying pos- 
sessions of Spain, the orders from the home government were 
as good as could possibly be desired. No other European 
government issued any which were nearly so enlightened or 
testified to such care about that matter. Spanish America is 
still covered with institutions founded by Spain for the benefit 
of the aborigines, so far as they have not been confiscated or 
diverted to other uses. Nevertheless, the Spanish rule nearly 
exterminated the aborigines in 150 years. The Pope gave 
them into servitude to the Spaniards. The Spaniards re- 
garded them as savages, heretics, beasts, not entitled to 
human consideration. Here you have the great explanation 
of man's inhumanity to man. When Spaniards tortured and 
burned Protestants and Jews, it was because, in their minds, 
Protestants and Jews were heretics, that is to say, were 
beyond the pale, were abominable, were not entitled to 
human consideration. Humane men and pious women felt 
no more compunctions at the sufferings of Protestants and 
Jews than we would at the execution of mad dogs or rattle- 



12 

snakes. There are plenty of people in the United States 
to-day who regard negroes as human beings, perhaps, but 
of a different order from white men, so that the ideas and 
social arrangements of white men cannot be applied to them 
with propriety. Others feel the same way about Indians. 
This attitude of mind, wherever you meet with it, is what 
causes tyranny and cruelty. It is this disposition to decide 
offhand that some people are not fit for liberty and self-gov- 
ernment which gives relative truth to the doctrine that all 
men are equal, and, inasmuch as the history of mankind has 
been one long story of the abuse of some by others (who, of 
course, smoothed over their tyrannj' by some beautiful doc- 
trines of religion, or ethics, or political philosophy, which 
proved that it was all for the best good of the oppressed), 
therefore the doctrine that all men are equal has come to 
stand as one of the corner-stones of the temple of justice and 
truth. It was set up as a bar to just this notion that we are 
so much better than others that it is liberty for them to be 
governed by us. 

The Americans have been committed from the outset to the 
doctrine that all men are equal. We have elevated it into an 
absolute doctrine as a part of the theory of our social and 
political fabric. It has always been a domestic dogma in 
spite of its absolute form, and as a domestic dogma it has 
always stood in glaring contradiction to the facts about 
Indians and negroes, and to our legislation about Chinamen. 
In its absolute form it must, of course, apply to Kanakas, 
Malays, Tagals, and Chinese just as much as to Yankees, 
Germans, and Irish. It is an astonishing event that we 
have lived to see American arms carry this domestic dogma 
out where it must be tested in its application to uncivilized 
and half civilized peoples. At the first touch of the test we 
throw the doctrine away, and adopt the Spanish doctrine. 
We are told by all the imperialists that these people are not 
fit for liberty and self-government ; that it is rebellion for 
them to resist our beneficence ; that we must send fleets and 
armies to kill them, if they do it ; that we must devise a gov- 
ernment for them, and administer it ourselves ; that we may 
buy them or sell them as we please, and dispose of their 
"trade" for our own advantage. What is that but the 



policy of Spain to her dependencies ? What can we expect 
as a consequence of it ? Nothing but that it will bring us 
where Spain is now. 

But, then, if it is not right for us to hold these islands as 
dependencies, you may ask me whether I think that we ought 
to take them into our Union, at least some of them, and to let 
them help to govern us. Certainly not. If that question is 
raised, then the question whether they are, in our judgment, 
fit for self-government or not is in order. The American peo- 
ple, since the civil war, have to a great extent lost sight of 
the fact that this state of ours, the United States of America, 
is a confederated state of a very peculiar and artificial form. 
It is not a state like the states of Europe, with the exception 
of Switzerland. The field for dogmatism in our day is not 
theology ; it is political philosophy. "Sovereignty" is the 
most abstract and metaphysical term in political philosophy. 
Nobody can define it. For this reason it exactly suits the 
purposes of the curbstone statesman. He puts into it what- 
ever he wants to get out of it again, and he has set to work 
lately to spin out a proof that the United States is a great 
imperialistic state, although the Constitution, which tells us 
just what it is, and what it is not, is there to prove the 
contrary. 

The thirteen colonies, as we all know, were independent 
commonwealths with respect to each other. They had little 
sympathy and a great deal of jealousy. They came into a 
union with each other upon terms which were stipulated and 
defined in the Constitution, but they united only unwillingly 
and under the pressure of necessity. What was at first only a 
loose combination or alliance has been welded together into a 
great state by the history of a century. Nothing, however, has 
altered that which was the first condition of the Union, viz., 
that all the States members of it should be on the same plane 
of civilization and political development ; that they should all 
hold the same ideas, traditions, and political creed ; that their 
social standards and ideals should be such as to maintain cor- 
dial sympathy between them. The civil war arose out of the 
fact that this condition was imperfectly fulfilled. At other 
times actual differences in standpoint and principle, or in ideals 
and opinion, have produced discord within the confederation. 



14 

Such crises are inevitable in any confederated state. It is the 
highest statesmanship in such a system to avoid them, or 
smooth them over, and, above all, never to take in voluntarily 
any heterogeneous elements. The prosperity of such a state 
depends on closer and closer sympathy between the parts in 
order that differences which arise may be easily harmon- 
ized. What we need is more intension, not more extension. 

It follows, then, that it is unwisdom to take into a state 
like this any foreign element which is not congenial to it. 
Any such element will act as a solvent upon it. Consequently 
we are brought by our new conquests face to face with this 
dilemma : we must either hold them as inferior possessions, 
to be ruled and exploited by us after the fashion of the old 
colonial system, or we must take them in on an equality with 
ourselves, where they will help to govern us and to corrupt a 
political system which they do not understand, and in which 
they cannot participate. From that dilemma there is no 
escape except to give them independence and to let them 
work out their own salvation or go without it. Hayti has 
been independent for a century, and has been a theatre of 
revolution, tyranny, and bloodshed all the time. There is 
not a Spanish- American state which has proved its capacity 
for self-government as yet. It is a fair question whether any 
one of them would have been worse off than it is to-da} r if 
Spanish rule had been maintained in it. The chief exception 
is Mexico. Mr. Lummis, an American, has recently pub- 
lished a book on Mexico, in which he tells us that we would 
do well to go to school to Mexico for a number of important 
public interests, but Mexico has been, for ten or fifteen years, 
under a dictator, and the republican forms have been in 
abeyance. What will happen there when the dictator dies 
nobody knows. The doctrine that we are to take away from 
other nations any possessions of theirs which we think that we 
could manage better than they are managing them, or that 
we are to take in hand any countries which we do not think 
capable of self-government, is one which will lead us very 
far. With that doctrine in the background, our politicians 
will have no trouble to find a war ready for us the next time 
that they come around to the point where they think that it 
is time for us to have another. We are told that we must 



15 

have a big army hereafter. What for ; unless we propose to 
do again by and by what we have just done ? In that case 
our neighbors have reason to ask themselves whom we will 
attack next. They must begin to arm, too, and by our act 
the whole Western world will be plunged into the military 
anxiety under which the Eastern world is groaning. Here is 
another point in regard to which the conservative elements 
in the country are making a great mistake to allow all this 
militarism and imperialism to go on without protest. It 
will be established as a rule that, whenever political ascend- 
ancy is threatened, it can be established again by a little war, 
filling the minds of the people with glory, and diverting their 
attention from their own interests. Hard-headed old Benja- 
min Franklin hit the point when, referring back to the days 
of Marlborough, he talked about the " pest of glory." The 
thirst for glory is an epidemic which robs a people of their 
judgment, seduces their vanity, cheats them of their inter- 
ests, and corrupts their consciences. 

This country owes its existence to a revolt against the 
colonial and navigation system which, as I have said, Spain 
first put in practice. The English colonial system never was 
even approximately so harsh and tyrannical as that of Spain. 
The first great question which arose about colonies in Eng- 
land was whether they were parts of the possessions of the 
king of England or part of the dominion of the crown. The 
constitutional difference was great. In the one case they 
were subject to the king, and were not under the constitu- 
tional guarantees ; in the other case they were subject to the 
Parliament and were under the constitutional guarantees. 
This is exactly the same question which arose in the middle 
of this century in this country about territories, and which 
helped to bring on the Civil War. It is already arising again. 
It is the question whether the Constitution of the United 
States extends over all men and territory owned by the 
United States, or whether there are to be grades and planes 
of rights for different parts of the dominions over which this 
flag waves. This question already promises to introduce dis- 
sensions amongst us which will touch the most vital elements 
in our national existence. 

The constitutional question, however, goes even deeper 



i6 

than this. Of the interpretation of clauses in the Constitu- 
tion I am not competent to speak, but the Constitution is the 
organic law of this confederated state in which we live, and 
therefore it is the description of it as it was planned and as 
it is. The question at stake is nothing less than the integ- 
rity of this state in its most essential elements. The expan- 
sionists have recognized this fact by already casting the 
Constitution aside. The military men, of course, have been 
the first to do this. It is of the essence of militarism that 
under it military men learn to despise constitutions, to sneer 
at Parliaments, and to look with contempt on civilians. 
Some of the imperialists are not ready to go quite so fast, as 
yet. They have remonstrated against the military doctrine, 
but that only proves that the military men see the point at 
issue better than the others do. Others say that, if the legs 
of the Constitution are too short to straddle the gulf between 
the old policy and the new, they can be stretched a little, a 
view of the matter which is as flippant as it is in bad taste. 
It would require too much time to notice the various con- 
temptuous and jaunty references to the Constitution which 
every day brings to our notice, and from the same class, at 
least, who, two years ago, were so shocked at a criticism of 
the interpretation of the Constitution which was inserted in 
the Chicago platform. 

The question of imperialism, then, is the question whether 
we are going to give the lie to the origin of our own national 
existence, by establishing a colonial sytem of the old Spanish 
type, even if we have to sacrifice our existing civil and 
political S} r stem to do it. I submit that it is a strange incon- 
gruity to utter grand platitudes about the blessings of liberty, 
etc., which we are going to impart to these people, and to 
begin by refusing to extend the Constitution over them, and 
still more by throwing the Constitution into the gutter here 
at home. If you take away the Constitution, what is 
" American liberty " and all the rest ? Nothing but a lot of 
phrases. 

Some will answer me that they do not intend to adopt 
any Spanish colonial system ; that they intend to imitate the 
modern English policy with respect to colonies. 

The proudest fact in the history of England is that, since 



: 7 

the Napoleonic wars, she has steadily corrected abuses, 
amended her institutions, redressed grievances, and so has 
made her recent history a story of amelioration of all her in- 
stitutions, social, political, and civil. To do this she has had 
to overcome old traditions, established customs, vested rights, 
and all the other obstacles which retard or prevent social 
improvement. The consequence is that the traditions of her 
public service, in all its branches, have been purified, and 
that a body of men has grown up who have a noble spirit, 
high motives, honorable methods, and excellent standards. 
At the same time the policy of the country has been steadily 
growing more and more enlightened in regard to all the 
great interests of society. These triumphs of peace are far 
greater than any triumphs of war. It takes more national 
grit to correct abuses than to win battles. England has 
shown herself very willing indeed to learn from us whatever 
we could teach, and we might learn a great deal from her on 
matters far more important than colonial policy. Her reform 
of her colonial policy is only a part, and perhaps a conse- 
quence, of the improvements made elsewhere in her political 
system. 

We have had some experience this last summer in the 
attempt to improvise an army. We may be very sure that it 
is equally impossible to improvise a colonial system. The 
present English colonial system is aristocratic. It depends 
upon a large body of specially trained men, acting under 
traditions which have become well established, and with a 
firm esprit de corps. Nobody can get into it without training. 
The sj'Stem is foreign to our ideas, tastes, and methods. It 
would require a long time and radical changes in our politi- 
cal methods, which we are not as yet at all disposed to make, 
to establish any such thing here, and then it would be an 
imitation. Moreover, England has three different colonial 
systems, according to the development of the resident popu- 
lation in each colony or dependency, and the selection of the 
one of these three systems which we will adopt and apply 
involves all the difficulties of devising a new and independent 
system. 

There is, however, another difficulty in borrowing the 
English colonial system, which is connected with the question 



of taxing the dependencies. A great many people talk about 
the revenue which we are to get from these possessions. If 
we attempt to get any revenues from them we shall repeat the 
conduct of England toward her colonies, against which they 
revolted. England claimed that it was reasonable that the 
colonies should pay their share of imperial expenses which 
were incurred for the benefit of all. I have never been able 
to see why that was not a fair demand. As you know, the 
colonies spurned it with indignation, on the ground that the 
taxation, being at the discretion of a foreign power, might be 
made unjust. Our historians and publicists have taught us 
that the position of the colonists was right and heroic, and 
the only one worthy of freemen. The revolt was made on 
the principle of no taxation, not on the size of the tax. The 
colonists would not pay a penny. Since that is so, we cannot 
get a penny of revenue from the dependencies, even for their 
fair share of imperial expenditures, without burning up all 
our histories, revising all the great principles of our heroic 
period, repudiating our great men of that period, and going 
over to the Spanish doctrine of taxing dependencies at the 
discretion of the governing state. Already one of these depend- 
encies is in arms struggling for liberty against us. Read the 
threats of the imperialists against these people, who dare to 
rebel against us, and see whether I am missfating or exag- 
gerating the corruption of imperialism on ourselves. The 
question is once more, whether we are prepared to repudiate 
the principles which we have been insisting on for 150 years, 
and to embrace those of which Spain is the oldest and most 
conspicuous representative, or not. 

If, however, we adopt the present English system, we 
shall find that it is as unjust to the mother country as the 
old system was to the colonies, or more so. The colonies 
now tax the mother country. She pays large expenses for 
their advantage, for which they return nothing. The} - set 
up tax barriers against her trade with them. I do not believe 
that the United States will ever consent to any such system, 
and I am clear in the opinion that they never ought to. If 
the colonies ought not to be made tributary to the mother 
country, neither ought the mother country to be made tribu- 
tary to them. The proposition to imitate England's colonial 



19 

policy is evidently made without the necessary knowledge of 
what it means, and it proves that those who thrust aside 
prudent objections by declaring off-hand that we will imitate 
England have not any serious comprehension of what it is 
that they propose to do. 

v The conclusion of this branch of the subject is that it is 
fundamentally antagonistic to our domestic system to hold 
dependencies which are unfit to enter into the Union. Our 
system cannot be extended to take them in, or adjusted to 
them to keep them out without sacrificing its integrity. If 
we take in dependencies, which, as we now agree, are not fit 
to come in as States, there will be constant political agitation 
to admit them as States, for such agitation will be fomented 
by any party which thinks that it can win votes in that way. 
It was an enormous blunder in statecraft to engage in a war 
which was sure to bring us into this predicament. 

77. The Question of Commercial Policy in Dealing with the 
Dependencies . 

It seems as if this new policy was destined to thrust a 
sword into every joint in our historical and philosophical 
system. Our ancestors revolted against the colonial and 
navigation system, but, as soon as they got their independ- 
ence, they fastened a navigation system on themselves. The 
consequence is that our industry and commerce are to-day 
organized under a restrictive system which is the direct off- 
spring of the old Spanish restrictive system, and is based on 
the same ideas of economic policy, viz., that statesmen can 
devise a prosperity policy for a country, which will do more 
for it than a spontaneous development of the energy of the 
people and the resources of the territory would do. On the 
other hand, inside of the Union we have established the grand- 
est experiment in absolute free trade that has ever existed. 
The combination of the two is not new, because it is just 
what Colbert tried in France, but it is original here, and is 
an interesting result of the presence in men's minds of two 
opposite philosophies, the adjustment of which has never yet 
been fought out. The extension of our authority over these 
new territories forces the inconsistency between our internal 



20 

and our external policy out of the field of philosophy into 
that of practical politics. Wherever the boundary line of the 
national system falls we have one rule inside of it and another 
outside of it. Are the new territories to be taken inside or 
to be treated as outside ? If we develop this dilemma, we 
shall see that it is of the first importance. 

If we treat the dependencies as inside the national system, 
we must have absolute free trade with them. Then, if, on 
the policy of the " open door," we allow all others to go to 
them on the same terms as ourselves, the dependencies will 
have free trade with all the world, while we are under the 
restrictive system ourselves. Then, too, the dependencies 
can obtain no revenues by import duties. 

If we take the other branch of the dilemma and treat the 
dependencies as outside of our national policy, then we must 
shut out their products from our market by taxes. If we do 
this on the policy of the " open door," then any taxes which 
the islands lay upon imports from elsewhere, they must also 
lay upon imports from us. Then they and we will be taxing 
each other. If we go upon the protectionist policy, we shall 
determine our taxes against them, and theirs against other 
nations, and we shall let them lay none against us. That is 
exactly the Spanish system. Under it the colonies will be 
crushed between the upper and the nether millstone. They 
will revolt against us for just the same reason for which 
they revolted against Spain. 

I have watched the newspapers with great interest for 
six months, to see what indications were presented of the 
probable currents of opinion on 'the dilemma which I have 
described. There have been but few. A few extreme pro- 
tectionist newspapers have truculently declared that our 
protective system was to be extended around our possessions, 
and that everybody else was to be excluded from them. 
From a number of interviews and letters, by private indi- 
viduals, I select the following as expressing well what is sure 
to be the view of the unregenerate man, especially if he has 
an interest to be protected as this writer had : 

"I am opposed to the ' open door ' policy, as I understand 
it. To open the ports of our new territories free to the world 
would have the effect of cheapening or destroying many of 



21 



the benefits of territorial acquisition, which has cost us blood 
and money. As a nation we are well qualified to develop 
and handle the trade of our new possessions, and by permit- 
ting others to come in and divide the advantages and profits 
of this trade we not only wrong our own citizens, who should 
be given preference, but exhibit a weakness that ill becomes 
a nation of our prominence." 

This is exactly the view which was held in Spain, France, 
Holland, and England, in the eighteenth century, and upon 
which the navigation system, against which our fathers 
revolted, was founded. If we adopt this view we may count 
upon it that we shall be embroiled in constant wars with 
other nations, which will not consent that we should shut 
them out of parts of the earth's surface until we prove that 
we can do it by force. Then we shall be parties to a renewal 
of all the eighteenth century wars for colonies, for supremacy 
on the sea, for "trade," as the term is used, for world 
supremacy, and for all the rest of the heavy follies from 
which our fathers fought to free themselves. That is the 
policy of Russia and France at the present time, and we have 
before our eyes proofs of its effect on the peace and welfare 
of mankind. 

Our modern protectionists have always told us that the 
object of their policy is to secure the home market. They 
have pushed their system to an extravagant excess. The 
free traders used to tell them that they were constructing a 
Chinese wall. They answered that they wished we were 
separated from other nations by a gulf of fire. Now it is 
they who are crying out that they are shut in by a Chinese 
wall. When we have shut all the world out, we find that we 
have shut ourselves in. The protective system is applied 
especially to certain selected lines of production. Of course 
these are stimulated out of proportion to the requirements of 
the community, and so are exposed to sharp fluctuations of 
high profits and over-production. At great expense and loss 
we have carried out the policy of the home market, and now 
we are called upon at great expense and loss to go out and 
conquer territory in order to widen the market. In order to 
have trade with another community, the first condition is, 
that we must produce what they want, and they must pro- 



22 

duce what we want. That is the economic condition. The 
second condition is that there must be peace and security, 
and freedom from arbitrary obstacles interposed by govern- 
ment. This is the political condition. If these conditions 
are fulfilled, there will be trade, no matter whether the two 
communities are in one body politic or not. If these condi- 
tions are not fulfilled, there will be no trade, no matter what 
flag floats. If we want more trade we can get it any day by 
a reciprocity treaty with Canada, and it will be larger and 
more profitable than that of all the Spanish possessions. It 
will cost us nothing to get it. Yet while we were fighting 
for Porto Rico and Manilla, and spending three or four 
hundred millions to get them, negotiations with Canada 
failed through the narrow-mindedness and bigotry which we 
brought to the negotiation. Conquest can do nothing for 
trade except to remove the political obstacles which the 
conquered could not, or would not, remove. From this it 
follows that the only justification for territorial extension is 
the extension of free and enlightened policies in regard to 
commerce. Even then extension is an irksome necessity. 
The question always is, whether you are taking an asset or 
a liability. Land-grabbing means properly taking territory 
and shutting all the rest of the world out of it, so as to exploit 
it ourselves. It is not land-grabbing to take it and police it 
and throw it open to all. This is the policy of the " open 
door." Our external commercial policy is, in all its prin- 
ciples, the same as that of Spain. We had no justification, 
on that ground, in taking anything away from her. If we 
now seek to justify ourselves, it must be by going over to the 
free policy, but, as I have shown, that forces to a crisis the 
contradiction between our domestic and our external policy 
as to trade. It is very probable, indeed, that the destruction 
of our restrictive system will be the first good result of 
expansion, but my object here has been to show what a 
network of difficulties environ us in the attempt to establish 
a commercial policy for these dependencies. We have cer- 
tainly to go through years of turmoil and political bitterness, 
with all the consequent chances of internal dissension, before 
these difficulties can be overcome. 



23 

III. The Antagonism of Imperialism and Democracy. 

Another phenomenon which deserves earnest attention from 
the student of cotemporaneous history and of the trend of 
political institutions, is the failure of the masses of our peo- 
ple to perceive the inevitable effect of imperialism on democracy. 
On the twenty-ninth of last November the Prime Minister of 
France was quoted in a cable despatch as follows : ' ' For 
twenty-eight years we have lived under a contradiction. 
The army and democracy subsist side by side. The main- 
tenance of the traditions of the army is a menace to liberty, 
yet they assure the safety of the country and its most sacred 
duties." 

That antagonism of democracy and militarism is now com- 
ing to a crisis in France, and militarism is sure to win, because 
the French people would make any other sacrifice rather than 
diminish their military strength. In Germany the attempt 
has been going on for thirty years to establish constitutional 
government with parliamentary institutions. The parts of 
the German system are at war with each other. The Em- 
peror constantly interferes with the operation of the system, 
and utters declarations which are entirely personal. He is 
not responsible, and cannot be answered or criticised. The 
situation is not so delicate as in France, but it is exceedingly 
unstable. All the desire of Germans for self-government 
and civil liberty runs out into socialism, and socialism is 
repressed by force or by trickery. The conservative classes 
of the country acquiesce in the situation, while they deplore 
it. The reason is because the Emperor is the war-lord. His 
power and authority are essential to the military strength of 
the state in face of its neighbors. That is the preponderating 
consideration to which everything else has to yield, and the 
consequence of it is that there is to-day scarcely an institution 
in Germany except the army. 

Everywhere you go on the Continent of Europe at this 
hour you see the conflict between militarism and industrial- 
ism. You see the expansion of industrial power pushed for- 
ward by the energy, hope, and thrift of men, and you see the 
development arrested, diverted, crippled, and defeated by 
measures which are dictated by military considerations. At 



24 

the same time the press is loaded down with discussions 
about political economy, political philosophy, and social pol- 
icy. They are discussing poverty, labor, socialism, charity, 
reform, and social ideals, and are boasting of enlightenment 
and progress, at the same time that the things which are 
done are dictated not by these considerations, but by military 
interests. It is militarism which is eating up all the products 
of science and art, defeating the energy of the population, 
and wasting its savings. It is militarism which forbids the 
people to give their attention to the problems of their own 
welfare, and to give their strength to the education and com- 
fort of their children. It is militarism which is combating 
the grand efforts of science and art to ameliorate the struggle 
for existence. 

The American people believe that they have a free country, 
and we are treated to grandiloquent speeches about our flag 
and our reputation for freedom and enlightenment. The 
common opinion is that we have these things because we 
have chosen and adopted them, because they are in the Dec- 
laration of Independence and the Constitution. We suppose, 
therefore, that we are sure to keep them, and that the follies 
of other people are things which we can hear about with 
complacency. People say that this country is like no other, 
that its prosperity proves its exceptionality, and so on. These 
are popular errors which in time will meet with harsh correc- 
tion. The United States is in a protected situation. It is 
easy to have equality where land is abundant, and where the 
population is small. It is easy to have prosperity where a 
few men have a great continent to exploit. It is easy to have 
liberty when you have no dangerous neighbors, and when 
the struggle for existence is easy. There are no severe 
penalties, under such circumstances, for political mistakes. 
Democracy is not then a thing to be nursed and defended, as 
it is in an old country like France. It is rooted and founded 
in the economic circumstances of the country. The orators 
and constitution-makers do not make democracy. They are 
made by it. This protected position, however, is sure to pass 
away. As the country fills up with population, and the task 
of getting a living out of the ground becomes more difficult, 
the struggle for existence will become harder, and the com- 



25 

petition of life more severe. Then liberty and democracy will 
cost something if they are to be maintained. 

Now what will hasten the day when our present advantages 
will wear out, and when we shall come down to the conditions 
of the older and densely populated nations ? The answer is : 
war, debt, taxation, diplomacy, a grand governmental sys- 
tem, pomp, glory, a big army and navy, lavish expenditures, 
political jobbery, — in a word, imperialism. In the old days 
the democratic masses of this country, who knew little about 
our modern doctrines of social philosophy, had a sound in- 
stinct on these matters, and it is no small ground of political 
disquietude to see it decline. They resisted every appeal to 
their vanity in the way of pomp and glory which they knew 
must be paid for. They dreaded a public debt and a standing 
army. They were narrow-minded and went too far with these 
notions, but they were at least right, if they wanted to 
strengthen democracy. 

The great foe of democracy now and in the near future is 
plutocracy. Every year that passes brings out this antago- 
nism more distinctly. It is to be the social war of the twentieth 
century. In that war militarism, expansion, and imperialism 
will all favor plutocracy. In the first place, war and expan- 
sion will favor jobbery, both in the dependencies and at 
home. In the second place, they will take away the atten- 
tion of the people from what the plutocrats are doing. In 
the third place, they will cause large expenditures of the 
people's money, the return for which will not go into the 
treasury, but into the hands of a few schemers. In the fourth 
place, they will call for a large public debt and taxes, and 
these things especially tend to make men unequal, because 
any social burdens bear more heavily on the weak than on 
the strong, and so make the weak weaker and the strong 
stronger. Therefore expansion and imperialism are a grand 
onslaught on democrac5 r . 

The point which I have tried to make in this lecture is that \ 
expansion and imperialism are at war with the best tradi- 
tions, principles, and interests of the American people, and 
that they will plunge us into a network of difficult problems 
and political perils, which we might have avoided, while they 
offer us no corresponding advantage in return. 



26 

Of course "principles," phrases, and catchwords are al- 
ways invented to bolster up any policy which anybody wants 
to recommend. So in this case. The people who have led 
us on to shut ourselves in, and who now want us to break 
out, warn us against the terrors of " isolation." Our ances- 
tors all came here to isolate themselves from the social 
burdens and inherited errors of the old world. When the 
others are all over ears in trouble, who would not be isolated 
in freedom from care ? When the others are crushed under 
the burden of militarism, who would not be isolated in peace 
and industry? When the others are all struggling under 
debt and taxes, who would not be isolated in the enjoyment 
of his own earnings for the benefit of his own family ? When 
the rest are all in a quiver of anxiety, lest at a day's notice 
they may be involved in a social cataclysm, who would not 
be isolated out of reach of the disaster ? What we are doing 
is that we are abandoning this blessed isolation to run after a 
share in the trouble. 

The expansionists answer our remonstrances on behalf of 
the great American principles by saying that times have 
changed, and that we have outlived the fathers of the repub- 
lic and their doctrines. As far as the authority of the great 
men is concerned, that may well be sacrificed without regret. 
Authority of persons and names is a dangerous thing. Let 
us get at the truth and the right. I, for my part, am also 
afraid of the great principles, and I would make no fight on 
their behalf. In the ten years before the Revolution our 
ancestors invented a fine lot of "principles" which they 
thought would help their case. They repudiated many of 
them as soon as they got their independence, and the rest 
of them have since made us a great deal of trouble. I have 
examined them all critically, and there is not one of them 
which I consider sound, as it is popularly understood. I have 
been denounced as a political heretic on this account by people 
who now repudiate them all in a sentence. But this only clears 
the ground for the real point. There is a consistency of char- 
acter for a nation as well as for a man. A man who changes 
his principles from week to week is destitute of character and 
deserves no confidence. The great men of this nation were 
such because they embodied and expressed the opinion and 



2 7 

sentiments of the nation in their time. Their names are 
something more than clubs with which to knock an opponent 
down when it suits one's purpose, but to be thrown away 
with contempt when they happen to be on the other side. So 
of the great principles; whether some of us are skeptical 
about their entire validity, and want to define and limit them 
somewhat, is of little importance. If the nation has accepted 
them, sworn by them, founded its legislation on them, im- 
bedded them in the decisions of its courts, and then if it 
throws them away at six months' warning, you may depend 
upon it that that nation will suffer in its moral and political 
rectitude a shock of the severest kind. Three years ago we 
were ready to fight Great Britain to make her arbitrate a 
quarrel which she had with Venezuela. The question about 
the Maine was the fittest subject for arbitration that ever 
arose between two nations, and we refused to listen to such a 
proposition. Three years ago, if you had said that any propo- 
sition put forth by anybody was " English," he might have 
been mobbed in the streets. Now the English are our be- 
loved friends, and we are going to try to imitate them and 
adopt their way of doing things. They are encouraging us 
to go into difficulties, first because our hands will be full and 
we will be unable to interfere elsewhere, and secondly, be- 
cause if we are in difficulties we shall need allies, and they 
think that they will be our first choice as such. Some of our 
public journals have been pouring out sentimental drivel for 
years about arbitration, but last summer they turned around 
and began to pour out sentimental drivel about the benefits 
of war. We congratulate ourselves all the time on the in- 
creased means of producing wealth, and then we take the 
opposite fit and commit some great folly in order to prove 
that there is something grander than the pursuit of wealth. 
Three years ago we were on the verge of a law to keep immi- 
grants out who were not good enough to be in with us. Now 
we are going to take in 8,000,000 barbarians and semi-bar- 
barians, and we are paying $20,000,000 to get them. For 
thirty years the negro has been in fashion. He has had 
political value, and has been petted. Now we have made 
friends with the Southerners. They and we are hugging each 
other. We are all united. The negro's day is over. He 



28 

is out of fashion. We cannot treat him one way and the Ma- 
lays, Tagals, and Kanakas another way. A Southern senator 
two or three days ago thanked an expansionist senator from 
Connecticut for enunciating doctrines which proved that, for 
the last thirty years, the Southerners have been right all the 
time, and his inference was incontrovertible. On the 26th 
of January, 1S99, one of the spokesmen of the administration 
in the House said that a resolution of April 13th, 1898, 
that "the people of Cuba are, and by right ought to be, free 
and independent," was "an absurd provision which no one 
here would support now." Any one who refused to shout 
for the resolution in April was "un-American;" anybody 
who refuses to shout for the contradiction in January is 
"un-American." So the "great principles" change all 
the time, or, what is far more important, the phrases change. 
Some go out of fashion ; others come in, but the phrase- 
makers are with us all the time. So when our friends, the 
expansionists, tell us that times have changed, what it means 
is that they have a whole set of new phrases, which they 
want to force into the place of the old ones. All phrases are 
simply means to deceive. 

All the validity that the great principles ever had they 
have now. Anybody who ever candidly studied them and 
accepted them for no more than they were really worth can 
stand by them now as well as ever. The time when a maxim 
or principle is worth something is when you are tempted to 
violate it. 

Another answer which the imperialists make is that Ameri- 
cans can do anything. They say that they do not shrink 
from responsibilities. They are willing to run into a hole, 
trusting to luck and cleverness to get out. There are some 
things that Americans cannot do. Americans cannot make 
2 and 2 = 5. You may answer that that is an arithmetical 
impossibility, and is not in the range of our subject. Very 
well : Americans cannot collect $2 a gallon tax on whisky. 
They tried it for many years and failed. That is an economic 
or political impossibility, the roots of which are in human 
nature. It is as absolute an impossibility on this domain as 
the former on the domain of mathematics. So far as yet 
appears, Americans cannot govern a city of 100,000 inhabi- 



2 9 

tants so as to get comfort and convenience in it at a low cost 
and without jobbery. The fire department of this city is 
now demoralized by political jobbery. Spain and all her 
possessions are not worth as much to you and me as the 
efficiency of the fire department of New Haven. The Ameri- 
cans in Connecticut cannot abolish the rotten borough system. 
The English abolished their rotten borough system seventy 
years ago, in spite of nobles and landlords. We cannot 
abolish ours in spite of the small towns. Americans cannot 
reform the pension list. Its abuses are rooted in the methods 
of democratic self-government, and no one dares to touch 
them. It is very doubtful indeed if Americans can keep up 
an army of 100,000 men in time of peace. Where can 100,- 
000 men be found in this country who are willing to spend 
their lives as soldiers? or, if they are found, what pay will it 
require to induce them to take this career? Americans 
cannot disentangle their currency from the confusion into 
which it was thrown by the Civil War, and they cannot put 
their currency on a simple, sure, and sound basis which 
would give stability to the business of the country. This is 
a political impossibility. Americans cannot assure the suf- 
frage to negroes throughout the United States. They have 
tried it for thirty years, and now, contemporaneously with 
this war with Spain, it has been finally demonstrated that it 
is a failure. Inasmuch as the negro is now out of fashion, 
no further attempt to accomplish this purpose will be made. 
It is an impossibility on account of the complexity of our 
system of State and federal government. If I had time to do 
so, I could go back over the history of negro suffrage and 
show you how curbstone arguments, exactly analogous to 
the arguments about expansion, were used to favor it, and 
how objections were thrust aside in this same blustering 
and senseless manner in which objections to imperialism are 
met. The ballot, we were told, was an educator, and would 
solve all difficulties in its own path as by magic. Worse 
still : Americans cannot assure life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness to negroes inside of the United States. When 
the negro postmaster's house was set on fire in the night in 
South Carolina, and not only he, but his wife and children, 
were murdered as they came out, and when, moreover, this 



3° 

incident passed without legal investigation or punishment, 
it was a bad omen for the extension of liberty, etc., to 
Malays and Tagals by simply setting over them the American, 
flag. Upon a little serious examination, the off-hand disposal 
of an important question of policy, by the declaration that 
Americans can do anything, proves to be only a silly piece 
of bombast, and, upon a little reflection, we find that our 
hands are quite full at home of problems, by the solution of 
which the peace and happiness of the American people could 
be greatly increased. The laws of nature and of human 
nature are just as valid for Americans as for anybody else, 
and if we commit acts, we shall have to take consequences, 
just like other people. Therefore, prudence demands that 
we look ahead to see what we are about to do, and that we 
gauge the means at our disposal, if we do not want to bring 
calamity on ourselves and our children. We see that the 
peculiarities of our system of government set limitations on 
us. We cannot do things which a great centralized mon- 
archy could do. The very blessings and special advantages 
which we enjoy, as compared with others, bring disabilities 
with them. That is the great fundamental cause of what I 
have tried to show throughout this lecture, that we cannot 
govern dependencies consistently with our political system, 
and that, if we try it, the state which our fathers founded 
will suffer a reaction which will transform it into another 
empire just after the fashion of all the old ones. That is 
what imperialism means. That is what it will be, and the 
democratic republic, which has been, will stand in history as 
a mere transition form like the colonial organization of earlier 
days. 

And yet this scheme of a republic which our fathers formed 
was a glorious dream which demands more than a word of 
respect and affection before it passes away. Indeed, it is not 
fair to call it a dream or even an ideal. It was a possibility 
which was within our reach if we had been wise enough to 
grasp and hold it. It was favored by our comparative isola- 
tion, or, at least, by our distance from other strong states. 
The men who came here were able to throw off all the tram- 
mels of tradition and established doctrine. The) T went out 
into a wilderness, it is true, but they took with them all the 



3i 

art, science, and literature which, up to that time, civilization 
had produced. They could not, it is true, strip their minds 
of the ideas which they had inherited, but, in time, as they 
lived on in the New World, they sifted and selected these ideas, 
retaining what they chose. Of the Old World institutions, 
also, they selected and adopted what they chose, and threw 
aside the rest. It was a grand opportunity to be thus able to 
strip off all the follies and errors which they had inherited, so 
far as they chose to do so. They had unlimited land with 
no feudal restrictions to hinder them in the use of it. Their 
idea was that they would never allow any of the social and 
political abuses of the Old World to grow up here. There 
should be no manors, no barons, no ranks, no prelates, no 
idle classes, no paupers, no disinherited ones, except the 
vicious. There were to be no armies except a militia, which 
would have no functions but those of police. They would 
have no court and no pomp ; no orders, or ribbons, or decora- 
tions, or titles. They would have no public debt. They 
repudiated with scorn the notion that a public debt is a pub- 
lic blessing. If debt was incurred in war it was to be paid in 
peace and not entailed on posterity. There was to be no 
grand diplomacy, because they intended to mind their own 
business, and not be involved in any of the intrigues to which 
European statesmen were accustomed. There was to be no 
balance of power and no ' ' reason of state ' ' to cost the life 
and happiness of citizens. The only part of the Monroe doc- 
trine which is valid was their determination that the social 
and political systems of Europe should not be extended over 
any part of the American Continent, lest people who were 
weaker than we should lose the opportunity which the new 
continent gave them to escape from those systems if they 
wanted to. Our fathers would have an economical govern- 
ment, even if grand people called it a parsimonious one, 
and taxes should be no greater than were absolutely necessary 
to pay for such a government. The citizen was to keep all 
the rest of his earnings, and use them as he thought best for 
the happiness of himself and his family. The citizen was, 
above all, to be ensured peace and quiet while he pursued his 
honest industry and obeyed the laws. No adventurous pol- 
icies of conquest or ambition, such as, in their belief, kings 



32 

and nobles had forced, for their own advantage, on European 
states, would ever be undertaken by a free democratic repub- 
lic. Therefore the citizen here would never be forced to leave 
his family, or to give his sons to shed blood for glory, and to 
leave widows and orphans in misery for nothing. Justice and 
law were to reign in the midst of simplicity, and a government 
which had little to do was to offer little field for ambition. 
In a society where industry, frugality, and prudence were 
honored, it was believed that the vices of wealth would never 
flourish. 

We know that these beliefs, hopes, and intentions have 
been only partially fulfilled. We know that, as time has 
gone on, and we have grown numerous and rich, some of 
these things have proved impossible ideals, incompatible with 
a large and flourishing society, but it is by virtue of this con- 
ception of a commonwealth that the United States has stood 
for something unique and grand in the histor)' of mankind, 
and that its people have been happy. It is by virtue of these 
ideals that we have been "isolated," isolated in a position 
which the other nations of the earth have observed in silent 
envy, and yet there are people who are boasting of their 
patriotism, because they say that we have taken our place 
now amongst the nations of the earth by virtue of this war. 
My patriotism is of the kind which is outraged by the notion 
that the United States never was a great nation until in a 
petty three months' campaign it knocked to pieces a poor, 
decrepit, bankrupt old state like Spain. To hold such an 
opinion as that is to abandon all American standards, to put 
shame and scorn on all that our ancestors tried to build up 
here, and to go over to the standards of which Spain is a 
representative. 



1903 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 901 460 1 



